Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Probing the Nanoscale Excitonic Landscape and Quantum Confinement of Excitons in Gated Monolayer Semiconductors

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that electron-beam-induced charge trapping in hBN overcompensates the gate field, forming a roughly 150 nm wide neutral-exciton channel at the graphene edge.

desk verdict A credible new CL observation of a ~150 nm neutral-exciton channel at a gate edge, but the beam-trapping mechanism is tuned to fit, not independently tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00453 v1 pith:3KXLLQIV submitted 2025-08-30 cond-mat.mes-hall

Yueh-Chun Wu , Bogdan Dryzhakov , Huan Zhao , Ivan Vlassiouk , Kyle Kelley , Takashi Taniguchi , Kenji Watanabe , Jun Yan
show 1 more author
Benjamin Lawrie
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords excitonsquantumconfinementcathodoluminescencemonolayerWS2hBNencapsulationelectrostaticgatingchargetrappingp-i-njunction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that a focused electron beam can, through charging of the hBN dielectric, create a nanoscale confinement potential for neutral excitons in a gated monolayer semiconductor. Using cathodoluminescence with roughly 150 nm spatial resolution on hBN-encapsulated monolayer WS2, it resolves exciton and trion emission across the edge of a graphene back gate and observes a narrow channel of neutral exciton emission where the local doping reverses. The authors attribute this reverse doping to electron-beam-generated hot carriers that become trapped in hBN and overcompensate the applied gate field near the gate edge, forming a lateral p-i-n junction. If correct, the work turns an often-unwanted electron-beam charging effect into a tool for engineering quantum potentials in two-dimensional materials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the combination of cathodoluminescence with a 5 keV, 0.22 nA electron beam on an hBN/1L-WS2/hBN stack and an electrostatic model of a finite gate over a ground plane. The electron beam both excites the sample and, through hot-carrier generation and drift under the gate bias, deposits charge in the bottom hBN. The simulation tracks two parameters: qtrap/Q, the areal trapped-charge density relative to the ordinary two-plate capacitor charge, and dtrap/d, the trapping depth relative to the 25 nm dielectric thickness. When qtrap/Q ≈ 1.1 and dtrap/d is between 0.05 and 0.5, the fringing field near the gate edge reverses sign, producing a lateral n-i-p/p-i-n structure

What would settle it

A direct measurement of trapped charge in hBN under the beam—for example, Kelvin-probe force microscopy or electrostatic force microscopy on the same stack before and after CL exposure, or a beam-dose dependence study—could confirm whether qtrap exceeds Q and whether the neutral channel appears only after sufficient irradiation. If no such trapped-charge buildup is detected, or the neutral channel vanishes when trapping is suppressed, the claimed mechanism is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using cathodoluminescence on hBN-encapsulated monolayer WS2 with a few-layer graphene back gate, the paper resolves a lateral homojunction between the gated and ungated regions. At gate voltages of ±20 V, a narrow strip of neutral-exciton emission appears near the graphene edge, between the n-doped and p-doped zones. The authors argue this strip is a charge-neutral region of a lateral p-i-n junction created not by the gate alone but by electron-beam-induced charge trapped in the bottom hBN: hot carriers generated by the beam drift under the gate field and relax into trap states; when the trapped-charge density exceeds the ordinary capacitor charge (qtrap/Q ≈ 1.1), the fringing field near the

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the simulation assuming the trapped charge in hBN is slightly larger than the gate-induced charge and sits close to the WS2 layer; these parameters are chosen to match the CL maps, not measured independently, so if the real trapped charge is weaker or located differently, the claimed reverse doping and neutral channel would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cathodoluminescence can map local exciton energy and intensity at the sub-200 nm scale, giving a direct picture of a lateral p-i-n junction in a working 2D device.
  • The neutral-exciton channel is gate-controllable in sign: both positive and negative gate bias produce the same confinement near the gate edge, indicating the beam-induced trapped charge, not the gate polarity, sets the junction location.
  • The reduced gate efficiency observed in CL (trions only at |Vg| > 10 V) follows from the trapped charges screening a large fraction of the applied field, explaining spectra that a simple capacitor model cannot.
  • The formation of the channel provides a route to engineer nanoscale exciton potentials without patterned gates or strain, using beam-induced charge traps as the confinement mechanism.
  • The observed channel width (~150 nm) is consistent with the electrostatic width of the reverse-doped region in the simulation with overcompensating trapped charge; improving CL resolution via thinner hBN should sharpen the channel.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: varying beam dose, energy, or scan history should change the density and depth of trapped charge, shifting the width and position of the neutral channel; if the mechanism is right, the channel should appear only after sufficient irradiation.
  • The same charge-trapping picture suggests hysteresis: after the beam is turned off, the trapped charge may persist, so the doping landscape should depend on prior exposure—measurable in repeated gate sweeps.
  • If generalized, electron-beam writing could pattern arbitrary lateral quantum potentials in vdW heterostructures, offering a maskless complement to electrostatic and strain confinement.
  • The paper's simulated parameter choice (qtrap/Q ≈ 1.1) is an assumption, not a measurement; a direct Kelvin-probe or electrostatic-force measurement of trapped charge would either anchor or revise the mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports low-temperature cathodoluminescence (CL) measurements on hBN-encapsulated monolayer WS2 with a few-layer graphene back gate. It observes gate-dependent neutral-exciton/trion emission, a homojunction at the graphene edge, and a narrow (~150 nm) channel of neutral-exciton emission at the boundary between the gated and fringing-field regions. The authors attribute this channel to electron-beam-induced trapped charge in the bottom hBN, with a trapped-charge density exceeding the gate charge and located near the ground plane, producing reverse fringing fields and a lateral p-i-n junction. The support for this mechanism is an Ansys Maxwell 2D electrostatic simulation with a representative trapped-charge configuration.

Significance. If the mechanism is correct, the visualization of a nanoscale neutral-exciton channel controlled by the electron-beam/gate interplay would be a useful addition to CL-based nanoscale excitonic engineering. The experimental data are presented with explicit spectra and maps, and the trion binding energy of ~41 meV is consistent with prior literature. However, the central causal claim is supported only by a simulation whose key parameter is chosen to reproduce the data, and no independent measurement of the trapped charge density or depth is provided. The paper would be strengthened by additional constraints, a complete supporting-information parameter sweep, and a more cautious interpretation of 'quantum confinement.'

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4 (Simulation), Fig. 4(b)] The causal attribution of the neutral exciton channel to trapped charge in hBN rests entirely on the trapped-charge configuration qtrap/Q ≈ 1.1. This value is not measured, derived, or bracketed by material parameters; it is chosen because it 'captures the experimentally observed doping distribution.' The threshold qtrap > Q is critical: for qtrap/Q ≤ 1 the trapped charge merely screens the gate field and no reverse doping occurs. The simulation therefore cannot independently validate the mechanism. Please provide an independent constraint on qtrap (e.g., KPFM/EFM, capacitance-voltage, transport, or dose-dependent CL) or a sensitivity analysis over a physically justified range, and explicitly discuss the threshold.
  2. [Supporting Information (referred to in Results and Section 4)] The parameter sweeps over qtrap/Q and dtrap/d are said to be in the Supporting Information, but the Supporting Information is not included in this preprint. This omission prevents evaluation of whether the dtrap/d = 0.05–0.5 window is robust and whether the predicted channel position and width depend strongly on the unmeasured trap depth. Please include the full sweep, at least as supplementary figures with representative doping profiles for multiple qtrap/Q and dtrap/d values.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Conclusion] The reported ~150 nm channel width is quoted as a CL-resolved feature, but the authors state that the CL spatial resolution is limited by carrier diffusion within the hBN dielectric. Without deconvolution of the CL point-spread function, the observed 150 nm width may be resolution-limited rather than the actual width of the electrostatic potential. This matters because the width is used to support the p-i-n junction picture and the 'nanoscale confinement' claim. Please estimate the resolution using line cuts on a sharp feature, or state explicitly that 150 nm is an upper bound.
  4. [Title, Abstract, Conclusion] The term 'quantum confinement' and 'quantum-confined exciton transport' overstate what is shown. A smooth 150 nm-wide potential is far above the exciton Bohr radius in monolayer WS2 (~1–2 nm), and no discrete confined states or size-dependent energy shifts are reported. The data support a spatially localized neutral-exciton channel, not quantum-confined excitons. Please revise the terminology to 'localization' or 'trapping' unless discrete-level evidence is provided.
  5. [Results, Fig. 3] The assignment of the neutral channel to trapped-charge-induced doping does not rule out local strain or dielectric-environment variations at the graphene edge. The maps show CL energy and intensity only, not the carrier-density profile. A strain-sensitive measurement (e.g., Raman/PL under the same conditions) or AFM topography at the gate edge would help separate electrostatic from strain effects. Please address this alternative or explicitly acknowledge it as an unresolved ambiguity in the mechanism.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2(a) and text] The text refers to a 'blue-shifted exciton peak (≈2.032 meV)'; the unit should be eV, not meV.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states d = 25 nm, while the Experimental Section reports the bottom hBN thickness as approximately 23 nm. Please unify these values.
  3. [Fig. 3(d)] The caption mentions 'the white solid rectangular area' used for averaging, but this rectangle is not clearly visible in the figure as printed. Please mark it unambiguously.
  4. [Introduction] The phrase 'a alternative but powerful tool' contains a typo; should be 'an alternative.'
  5. [CL Measurements, Experimental Section] No electron dose per pixel or dwell-time map is reported. Since the proposed mechanism involves electron-beam-induced charging, a statement of the total dose and any dose-dependence would be useful.
  6. [Results, Fig. 2] The charge neutrality point appears at Vg ≈ 7 V rather than 0 V. This offset is presumably related to the trapped-charge mechanism, but it is not discussed quantitatively. A short comment would help the reader connect the gate-dependence to the proposed model.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central causal claim—e-beam trapped charge reverses the gate field and forms a neutral exciton channel—rests on qtrap/Q ≈ 1.1, a simulation parameter chosen so the model reproduces the observed CL doping maps; the confirmation therefore reduces to the fitted input.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2 (Result and Discussion), fringing-field simulation paragraph around Fig. 4(b); also referenced in the Conclusion]
    "Moreover, a reverse doping profile emerges across the region II and III when qtrap > Q and results in the formation of lateral n-i-p and p-i-n junctions. ... A representative case with qtrap/Q ≈ 1.1 and dtrap/d ranging from 0.05 to 0.5, shown in Fig. 4(b), captures the experimentally observed doping distribution, delineating distinct regions: intrinsic, gated, fringing field, and importantly, the emergence of a charge neutral zone at the interface between the electrostatic p-doped and n-doped region."

    qtrap/Q is not measured; it is a free input of the electrostatic model. The selected value ≈1.1 is deliberately just above the threshold qtrap > Q required for reverse doping, and the same calculation is then said to 'capture the experimentally observed doping distribution.' The neutral zone (p-i-n junction) invoked to explain the confinement channel is thus generated by the chosen parameter, not predicted independently. No independent measurement of trapped charge density or centroid in hBN is provided; if qtrap/Q ≤ 1 or dtrap/d falls outside the chosen window, the simulated reverse doping and the neutral channel do not appear. The observation of a spatial exciton channel is independent, but the mechanism attribution reduces to the fitted input.

full rationale

The CL measurements themselves (gate-dependent spectra, spatial maps, the neutral-exciton channel near the graphene edge) are direct observations and are not circular. The circularity enters at the causal-attribution step: the paper adopts a hot-carrier trapping mechanism and then uses an electrostatic simulation whose key parameter qtrap/Q ≈ 1.1 is chosen so that the simulation reproduces the observed doping profile. The sentence 'A representative case with qtrap/Q ≈ 1.1 ... captures the experimentally observed doping distribution' makes the fitting explicit. Because the reverse-doping profile and the neutral zone appear only when qtrap > Q, the simulation's output is an analytic consequence of the tuned input rather than a falsifiable prediction. This is pattern 2 (fitted input called prediction) and warrants a 6 on the circularity scale. The 'quantum confinement' language is an overstatement of a ~150 nm channel rather than a demonstration of quantum confinement, but it is not itself a circular derivation and is not scored separately. There is no material self-citation load-bearing argument: the cited e-beam doping mechanism [47] is external prior work, and self-citations [44–46] support only routine spectral assignments.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central mechanism relies on a simulated trapped-charge layer whose density is tuned to match the observed CL maps and whose depth is scanned over a broad range. These parameters are not independently measured, so the explanation is plausible but not directly evidenced. The other assumptions are background knowledge about electron-beam excitation in hBN-encapsulated TMDs and standard electrostatics.

free parameters (2)
  • qtrap/Q (trapped charge density ratio) = ≈ 1.1
    Chosen as a 'representative case' that 'captures the experimentally observed doping distribution' (Fig. 4b); not measured independently.
  • dtrap/d (normalized trapping depth) = 0.05 to 0.5
    Range scanned in simulation; no experimental measurement of the trapped charge layer depth in hBN is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption E-beam-generated hot carriers drift in the gate field and relax into trap states in the hBN dielectric, producing a trapped charge layer.
    Adopted from ref [47] (Shi et al., Nature Electronics 2020) and stated in the Fig. 4(a) description; not directly verified in this sample.
  • domain assumption The monolayer WS2 acts as an effective ground plane in the electrostatic simulation.
    Used in the Ansys Maxwell model (Fig. 4b) to define the fringing-field boundary; the TMD layer is stated to be grounded.
  • domain assumption Carriers generated by the electron beam in hBN relax into the WS2 and recombine radiatively, so CL reports the WS2 exciton population.
    Stated in Section 2 and Fig. 1(b); consistent with cited refs [27,30,31], but the carrier-transfer efficiency is not quantified.
  • standard math Standard electrostatics as solved by Ansys Maxwell 2D.
    Used for the fringing-field simulations; no new physics introduced.
invented entities (1)
  • Trapped charge layer in hBN with density qtrap and depth dtrap
    purpose: To screen and locally reverse the gate fringing field, creating the p-i-n junction and the neutral exciton channel.
    No direct measurement of charge in hBN is provided; the layer is inferred from the simulation that reproduces the CL maps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Nanoscale Excitonic Landscape and Quantum Confinement of Excitons in Gated Monolayer Semiconductors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KXLLQIV

@misc{pith2026250900453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Nanoscale Excitonic Landscape and Quantum Confinement of Excitons in Gated Monolayer Semiconductors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KXLLQIV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00453}
}
abstract

Engineering and probing excitonic properties at the nanoscale remains a central challenge in quantum photonics and optoelectronics. While exciton confinement via electrical control and strain engineering has been demonstrated in 2D semiconductors, substantial nanoscale heterogeneity limits the scalability of 2D quantum photonic device architectures. In this work, we use cathodoluminescence spectroscopy to probe the excitonic landscape of monolayer $WS_2$ under electrostatic gating. Exploiting the high spatial resolution of the converged electron beam, we resolve a homojunction arising between gated and ungated regions. Moreover, we reveal an exciton confinement channel arising from an unconventional doping mechanism driven by the interplay between the electron beam and the applied gate fields. These findings offer new insights into the optoelectronic behavior of monolayer semiconductors under the combined influence of electron-beam excitation and electrostatic gating. Our approach provides a pathway for exciton manipulation at the nanoscale and opens opportunities for controlling quantum-confined exciton transport in two-dimensional materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of CL setup illustrating electron beam excitation of hBN encapsulated, graphene-backgated WS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Representative CL spectra from region with and without underlying graphene at V [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Schematic of the hBN/WS2/hBN heterostructure with and without back-gate graphene, defining three re￾gions: (I) ungated, (II) gated, and (III) fringing-field region. (b) Contour plots of the measured CL as a function of po￾sition across regions I–III at gate voltages of +20 V (top) and –20 V (bottom). Scale bar: 200 nm (c) Maps of the inte￾grated emission intensity between 2.00–2.067 eV, highlighting the neutral … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Electron-beam–induced doping under gate bias fields (top: V [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    W. Shi, S. Kahn, L. Jiang, S.-Y. Wang, H.-Z. Tsai, D. Wong, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, F. Wang, M. F. Crommie, et al., Nature Electronics 2020, 3, 2 99

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    X. Liu, J. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, B. I. Halperin, P. Kim, C. R. Dean, Science 2022, 375, 6577 205

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Gupta, A

    S. Gupta, A. Kutana, B. I. Yakobson, Nature Communications 2020, 11, 1 2989

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Cutshall, F

    J. Cutshall, F. Mahdikhany, A. Roche, D. N. Shanks, M. R. Koehler, D. G. Mandrus, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Q. Zhu, B. J. LeRoy, et al., Science Advances 2025, 11, 1 eadr1772

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    T. B. Arp, D. Pleskot, V. Aji, N. M. Gabor, Nature Photonics 2019, 13, 4 245

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    R. Qi, A. Y. Joe, Z. Zhang, Y. Zeng, T. Zheng, Q. Feng, J. Xie, E. Regan, Z. Lu, T. Taniguchi, et al., Nature Communications 2023, 14, 1 8264

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    X. Wang, C. Xiao, H. Park, J. Zhu, C. Wang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Yan, D. Xiao, D. R. Gamelin, et al., Nature 2022, 604, 7906 468

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Ciorciaro, T

    L. Ciorciaro, T. Smole´ nski, I. Morera, N. Kiper, S. Hiestand, M. Kroner, Y. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Demler, et al., Nature 2023, 623, 7987 509

    work page 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    A. A. High, E. E. Novitskaya, L. V. Butov, M. Hanson, A. C. Gossard, Science 2008, 321, 5886 229

    2008

  2. [9]

    J. Hu, E. Lorchat, X. Chen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. F. Heinz, P. A. Murthy, T. Chervy, Sci- ence Advances 2024, 10, 12 eadk6369

    2024

  3. [10]

    Aharonovich, D

    I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, M. Toth, Nature Photonics 2016, 10, 10 631

    2016

  4. [11]

    H. Zhao, M. T. Pettes, Y. Zheng, H. Htoon, Nature Communications 2021, 12, 1 6753

    2021

  5. [12]

    Yu, G.-B

    H. Yu, G.-B. Liu, J. Tang, X. Xu, W. Yao, Science Advances 2017, 3, 11 e1701696

    2017

  6. [13]

    Y. Liu, K. Dini, Q. Tan, T. Liew, K. S. Novoselov, W. Gao, Science Advances 2020, 6, 41 eaba1830

    2020

  7. [14]

    Y. Chen, S. Qian, K. Wang, X. Xing, A. Wee, K. P. Loh, B. Wang, D. Wu, J. Chu, A. Alu, et al., Nature Nanotechnology 2022, 17, 11 1178

    2022

  8. [15]

    W. Luo, A. Puretzky, B. Lawrie, Q. Tan, H. Gao, A. K. Swan, L. Liang, X. Ling, Nano Letters 2023, 23, 21 9740

    2023

  9. [16]

    W. Luo, A. A. Puretzky, B. J. Lawrie, Q. Tan, H. Gao, Z. Chen, A. V. Sergienko, A. K. Swan, L. Liang, X. Ling, Acs Photonics 2023, 10, 8 2530

    2023

  10. [17]

    Dirnberger, J

    F. Dirnberger, J. D. Ziegler, P. E. Faria Junior, R. Bushati, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Fabian, D. Bougeard, A. Chernikov, V. M. Menon, Science Advances 2021, 7, 44 eabj3066

    2021

  11. [18]

    Heithoff, ´A

    M. Heithoff, ´A. Moreno, I. Torre, M. S. Feuer, C. M. Purser, G. M. Andolina, G. Calajo, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, D. M. Kara, et al., ACS Nano 2024, 18, 44 30283

    2024

  12. [19]

    Thureja, A

    D. Thureja, A. Imamoglu, T. Smole´ nski, I. Amelio, A. Popert, T. Chervy, X. Lu, S. Liu, K. Bar- mak, K. Watanabe, et al., Nature 2022, 606, 7913 298

    2022

  13. [20]

    D. S. Kim, C. Xiao, R. C. Dominguez, Z. Liu, H. Abudayyeh, K. Lee, R. Mayorga-Luna, H. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, et al., Science Advances 2025, 11, 19 eadt7789

    2025

  14. [21]

    G. Kim, B. Huet, C. E. Stevens, K. Jo, J.-Y. Tsai, S. Bachu, M. Leger, S. Song, M. Rahaman, K. Y. Ma, et al., Nature Communications 2024, 15, 1 6361. 8

    2024

  15. [22]

    Zhang, B

    S. Zhang, B. Li, X. Chen, F. L. Ruta, Y. Shao, A. J. Sternbach, A. McLeod, Z. Sun, L. Xiong, S. Moore, et al., Nature Communications 2022, 13, 1 542

    2022

  16. [23]

    H. Hou, M. Hua, V. S. C. Kolluru, W.-Y. Chen, K. Yin, P. Tripathi, M. K. Chan, B. T. Diroll, T. E. Gage, J.-M. Zuo, et al., Advanced Materials 2025, e01611

    2025

  17. [24]

    W. Luo, B. J. Lawrie, A. A. Puretzky, Q. Tan, H. Gao, D. B. Lingerfelt, G. Eichman, E. Mcgee, A. K. Swan, L. Liang, et al., ACS Nano 2023, 17, 23 23455

    2023

  18. [25]

    Bonnet, J

    N. Bonnet, J. Baaboura, F. Castioni, S. Y. Woo, C.-H. Ho, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. H. Tizei, T. Coenen, Nanotechnology 2024, 35, 40 405702

    2024

  19. [26]

    Bonnet, H

    N. Bonnet, H. Y. Lee, F. Shao, S. Y. Woo, J.-D. Blazit, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Zobelli, O. St´ ephan, M. Kociak, et al.,Nano Letters 2021, 21, 24 10178

    2021

  20. [27]

    Francaviglia, J

    L. Francaviglia, J. Zipfel, J. Carlstroem, S. Sridhar, F. Riminucci, D. Blach, E. Wong, E. Barnard, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, et al., Nanoscale 2022, 14, 20 7569

    2022

  21. [28]

    S. Y. Woo, F. Shao, A. Arora, R. Schneider, N. Wu, A. J. Mayne, C.-H. Ho, M. Och, C. Mattevi, A. Reserbat-Plantey, et al., Nano Letters 2024, 24, 12 3678

    2024

  22. [29]

    M. T. Borghi, N. R. Wilson, Nanotechnology 2024, 35, 46 465203

    2024

  23. [30]

    Ramsden, S

    H. Ramsden, S. Sarkar, Y. Wang, Y. Zhu, J. Kerfoot, E. M. Alexeev, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, S. Tongay, A. C. Ferrari, et al., ACS Nano 2023, 17, 12 11882

    2023

  24. [31]

    Zheng, J.-K

    S. Zheng, J.-K. So, F. Liu, Z. Liu, N. Zheludev, H. J. Fan, Nano Letters 2017, 17, 10 6475

    2017

  25. [32]

    Zheng, Z

    L. Zheng, Z. Dang, D. Ding, Z. Liu, Y. Dai, J. Lu, Z. Fang, Advanced Materials 2023, 35, 34 2204908

    2023

  26. [33]

    D. D. Xu, A. F. Vong, M. I. B. Utama, D. Lebedev, R. Ananth, M. C. Hersam, E. A. Weiss, C. A. Mirkin, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 25 2314242

    2024

  27. [34]

    Sutter, L

    P. Sutter, L. K. Khorashad, C. Argyropoulos, E. Sutter, Advanced Materials 2021, 33, 3 2006649

    2021

  28. [35]

    Koyama, Journal of Applied Physics 1980, 51, 4 2228

    H. Koyama, Journal of Applied Physics 1980, 51, 4 2228

    1980

  29. [36]

    Curie, J

    D. Curie, J. T. Krogel, L. Cavar, A. Solanki, P. Upadhyaya, T. Li, Y.-Y. Pai, M. Chilcote, V. Iyer, A. Puretzky, et al., ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022, 14, 36 41361

    2022

  30. [37]

    C. Jin, E. C. Regan, A. Yan, M. Iqbal Bakti Utama, D. Wang, S. Zhao, Y. Qin, S. Yang, Z. Zheng, S. Shi, et al., Nature 2019, 567, 7746 76

    2019

  31. [38]

    Arora, T

    A. Arora, T. Deilmann, T. Reichenauer, J. Kern, S. Michaelis de Vasconcellos, M. Rohlfing, R. Bratschitsch, Physical Review Letters 2019, 123, 16 167401

    2019

  32. [39]

    Fouchier, N

    M. Fouchier, N. Rochat, E. Pargon, J.-P. Landesman, Review of Scientific Instruments 2019, 90, 4

    2019

  33. [40]

    Zheng, G

    Z. Zheng, G. Tao, Y. Chen, Y. Dai, H. Zhang, P. Peng, H. Sun, F. Wu, Z.-K. Zhang, Z. Fang, ACS Nano 2025, 19, 14 14053

    2025

  34. [41]

    H. J. Conley, B. Wang, J. I. Ziegler, R. F. Haglund Jr, S. T. Pantelides, K. I. Bolotin, Nano Letters 2013, 13, 8 3626

    2013

  35. [42]

    Hern´ andez L´ opez, S

    P. Hern´ andez L´ opez, S. Heeg, C. Schattauer, S. Kovalchuk, A. Kumar, D. J. Bock, J. N. Kirchhof, B. H¨ ofer, K. Greben, D. Yagodkin, et al.,Nature Communications 2022, 13, 1 7691

    2022

  36. [43]

    Chatterjee, G

    S. Chatterjee, G. Gupta, S. Das, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Majumdar, Physical Review B 2022, 105, 12 L121409. 9 T able of Contents Nanoscale resolution of excitonic landscape and confinement potential in gated monolayer semiconductors using cathodolu- minescence

    2022

  37. [44]

    Y.-C. Wu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Yan, Physical Review B 2021, 104, 12 L121408

    2021

  38. [45]

    Goldstein, Y.-C

    T. Goldstein, Y.-C. Wu, S.-Y. Chen, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. Varga, J. Yan, The Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 153, 7

    2020

  39. [46]

    Y.-C. Wu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Yan, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2022, 24, 1 191

    2022

  40. [48]

    D. M. Kennes, M. Claassen, L. Xian, A. Georges, A. J. Millis, J. Hone, C. R. Dean, D. Basov, A. N. Pasupathy, A. Rubio, Nature Physics 2021, 17, 2 155. 10

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.